Do you support the plan? Or is it one series too many?

An Australian Rugby Union spokesman confirmed the plan after the idea had been voiced by ARU managing director John O'Neill in an Australian newspaper.

Australia hope to play the triangular tournament each November, apart from a break for World Cup years, the ARU said.

If the series is successful it is likely to continue every year apart from World Cup years, such as 2007.

Is a new Tri-Nations a good idea? Or are there enough internationals already?

This debate is now closed

Let's sort out the disaster that is the current stop-start domestic season and look after the clubs before shoe-horning more meaningless international matches in an already crowded season played by increasingly knackered players. Quality, not quantity, is what fans want to see.
Mike, UK

Without sounding like a broken record, all this talk is meaningless until we have a global season. Southern hemisphere players peak in August, Northern Hemisphere in March.

The Aussies see European tours in purely developmental terms, as they want to blood new talent in preparation for the next year's Tri-Nations.

This November's England v Australia game is virtually meaningless; the Aussies are simply examining their options for the World Cup next year.
Andy, Australia

No, it's too riddled with problems. Firstly, if it just gets played at Twickenham each year it's pointless. England need to take on the southern hemisphere teams away from home more and surely it's a bit cheeky to expect them to travel here every year.

Secondly, without France and New Zealand, it's only half a competition. The Autumn internationals are great, but who can doubt they're twice as exciting this year because we're taking on the All Blacks? However, they do suffer from being a bit meaningless. My non-rugby mates are always a bit mystified by the fact that really, we're not playing for anything and they do have a point!

We need to get back to touring, playing a series of Test matches. Plus we need to look at ways of encouraging support for rugby in all areas of the world, by A team tours, getting more sides to come to Twickenham or whatever. This tournament is too elitist and meaningless and would devalue Lions tours and the World Cup, which must be the showpiece!
Charlotte Hill, England

Judging from some of the contributors here there is a lot of resentment towards the Aussies out there. Is it because they have had too much recent success for your liking? I also agree that any such tournament is a stupid idea. But it is a stupid idea regardless of who proposed it, not because of who proposed it. Come on everyone (especially you Kiwis) - get that chip of your shoulders!
Greg, Australia

I agree with Johnny Wilkinson - the international season hasn't been fully thought through. The players will be even more knackered than they are now.
John Wilks, UK

In theory I like the idea of a Tri-Nations tournament, and as we traditionally play the southern hemisphere sides in October/November every year anyway, surely to formalise those games into a competition is a natural progression.

I also think that during an international tournament any player who is representing England should have his wages covered by the RFU and not their clubs.
Matt Unsworth, UK

England playing in a Tri-Nations tournament is an excellent idea, especially after the Six-Nations trophy becomes more diluted with teams like Italy joining.

England needs to continue to beat the best teams in the world on a more regular basis. This will then lead to World Cup glory. It is a shame that NZ are not on the list as they are a key global team, but I would rather see England take on the southern hemisphere and get some real competition rather than going through the motions of playing in Six-Nations tournaments against teams that fail to test them to the full.
Chris, UK

The rugby calendar is cramming in more and more every year. How can we expect our players to be fit for an international game every second week as well as play club rugby? They're not machines. Don't treat them like they are!
Tom Ansley, South Africa

If this competition is to go ahead (ignoring any worries about player fatigue) then it should be more carefully thought out. New Zealand should be included in any competition with the southern hemisphere. The last time England played the All Blacks was in the last World Cup, and they seem to be avoiding playing them.

Additionally it seems to be a bit unfair for England to always have the home advantage; surely it would be better if the venue was changed each year.

Am I being cynical, or is this just another revenue earner for the RFU, at the expense of the other home nations?
Adam, UK

The autumn internationals are fun in that the fixtures are never set in stone and for example last year we had Romania, this year it's New Zealand and it's a nice introduction to the rugby season. I think if there was a major tournament at this time, it could be in danger of becoming a bit predictable, especially with NZ not invited!
James Smith, UK

By leaving out France (arguably best in North) and NZ (best in South) the competition would have no relevance as it would not show the best rugby the world has to offer. It will also increase the problem of player fatigue. Bring back tours!
Devon, SA (living in Thailand)

It's mind-boggling that New Zealand could even be considered to be left out of such a tournament. They are the best team in the world. Just look at their Test history.

The Aussies are nothing more than great pretenders to that mantle. New Zealand are the current Tri-Nations champions and have won that title more than the Aussies. Maybe the Aussies, South Africans and English are just realising that the All Blacks are just too good for them to include in their little scheme of things.

New Zealand will always represent the true spirit of rugby and I for one will be very happy when they lift the cup from Australia. They are playing the best rugby in the world at the moment.
Phil, UK

It's a good idea in principle, but a bad idea in execution. With player fatigue strongly in the equation these days, how can there be justification for another annual series of Internationals?

Why not consider the existing hemisphere competitions continuing but on a bi-annual basis, with a tournament of this nature balancing in the alternate years? However, it MUST include the All Blacks if it's to have real meaning and then what of the French? Are we tumbling towards a mini World Cup for elite rugby nations...? BR> Tim, UK/NZ

I think an annual Tri-Nation competition would be a great idea. Shame New Zealand can't be squeezed in as well. AS far as cluttering up a season, an annual competition of this quality is too good to turn down, so let's remove international fixtures such as Romania which are mismatches in any case and could be played by "A" squads.
Paddy, UK

Although I applaud the idea of creating more structure and meaning to the autumn internationals, I do question the motivation of the three unions involved.

England obviously want to play the southern teams on a regular basis to increase their chances of winning a World Cup but they will need to tour down under as well as play at Twickenham.

I share the sentiments of the comments from New Zealand that Australia are trying to marginalise New Zealand as part of their perennial feud and South Africa have allied themselves with the ARU.

However New Zealand seem to be reluctant to visit Twickenham at all and therefore their influence on the autumn matches is marginal already. Surely tournaments of this sort should be arranged by the IRB and not by individual unions.
Malcolm, UK

I'd rather see a return to proper tours as it gives travelling fans a much better experience.

England already have to play NZ, Aus, and SA this autumn in one-off games. While I'm sure they'll be fantastic fun what do they actually achieve? How about donating any profits from these one-offs to the poorer nations to try and keep the game alive where it might otherwise struggle?
Charles, UK

This is just another ill-thought out money making scheme by those rugby playing nations that are getting a little too big for their boots.

Rugby has ambitions to be a global sport, watched by millions around the world. To achieve this it needs to maintain the quality and value of the games showpieces, international matches- not water them down by playing ever more of them.

Player burn-out and viewer apathy are real issues that need addressing. I detect no real desire among the rugby watching public for these games (reflected in many of the comments posted on this site). So why have them? These teams play each other enough as it is. We already have a tournament in which the best teams play each other; it's called the World Cup.
Dave Griffiths, UK

About a month ago, the southern hemisphere sides expressed a wish to return to full tours rather than one off Test matches. Then everyone agreed at an IRB meeting in Dublin that the top players were playing too much rugby. Where has this awful idea come from when you consider the above announcements?

It's just another money making scheme with no basis in reality, and hopefully it will be laughed at in the next RFU meeting. As Stuart Barnes has said, the Aussies have ruled the roost for too long when it comes to law and decision making in rugby union. Let's put a stop to it now.
Richard, UK

This just seems like another attempt to reinforce the current elite status quo in rugby. Bring in France and New Zealand and the rest of international rugby can be discarded. The five teams with a chance of winning the World Cup can play each other every year, then every four years decide amongst themselves who'll be champion.

This would be an appalling scenario! We should be concentrating on developing the quality of the Six Nations, expanding the Tri-Nations into a Southern Hemisphere tournament and developing other European and North American international sides.

The spectacle of a World Cup that can only be won by a handful of teams is a much diminished one. Diversity, expansion, excitement and unpredictability are what we need, not a continual strengthening of the stranglehold by the successful nations.
Tim, England

This is typical - the three most arrogant rugby nations wanting to play their own little tournament. Does the IRFU have no power anymore?
Mark, UK

Enough tournaments already! I can't imagine the players supporting this, especially in view of the demands of the Six Nations, the exciting Tri-Nations and the Super 12. It's clearly all about the unions making more money for themselves.

For the good of developing the game, let's continue to use autumn as a time when up and coming nations can be given internationals (England v Romania in 2001, Aust v Spain in 2001, Aust v Italy in 2002 etc). Even if the results are one-sided at present, these countries will never improve without the support of the rugby powers, financial and otherwise.
Chris, Australia

What a stupid idea - I'm already bored of seeing the South Africans and Aussies over here all the time. In this year's autumn international the one that my friends and I are really looking forward to is the New Zealand test. Why? Because we haven't had an All Black over kill.

I would much rather see a return to proper touring. Imagine the devaluing effect this tournament would have on the Six Nations and the World Cup. It would hinder the development of the global game and merely help line the pockets of the English, SA and Aussies. But over time fans would soon become bored and crave traditional rivalries.
Richard, UK

South Africa have long expressed an interest in moving to a northern hemisphere based tournament. So there's no suprise there. Australia's motive in even considering such an outlandish idea is a complete mystery.

For a country that desires to be the best, what is the point of winning a tournament that excludes (arguably) the best northern side in France and (even more arguably) the best in the south?

And what about England? Can you imagine the disruption the tournament would place on the domestic game? The upshot will be a marginalised tournament with second string players. No thanks.
Mark, UK

Great! Adds more meaning to the otherwise meaningless autumn internationals. Once every two years would seem more sensible however, allowing time for the World Cup and a Lions Tour in the intervening years.
Alex Robertson, England

It's a bad idea. Most southern hemisphere fans will tell you we want a return to touring, and less one-off's and other tournaments.
RyanS, UK/SA

This is an excellent idea. There are not enough of these compelling fixtures on the international fixture list as it is. My only fear is that it would be hijacked by the poorer sides such as the Scots or Welsh, devaluing the competition.
Tim, England

Doesn't rugby union have enough meaningless internationals already?
Daniel, UK (London)

It's a silly idea based on making revenue. Both hemispheres have their annual tournaments, and to change that format would mean an end to the Six Nations and the Tri-Nations.
Greg Rowden, England

This does go to prove that Mr O'Neill really does wish to freeze out the New Zealanders. This idea would devalue the Six Nations and the World Cup. Hopefully, the IRB can flex its muscles so that O'Neill's megalomania can be tamed for the good of world rugby. Mini competitions between an elite few do nothing for the growth of the game and become very boring very quickly. Bring back real tours!
Ty, UK

I think it is a great idea, but we have to bear in mind the amount of rugby our top guys are playing. This is something northern hemisphere rugby needs to boost not only audiences and the profile of the game, but to take it, and more specifically England, to a higher level. A good move all round, if the balance is kept.
Dan, UK

It seems a bit odd to create a north vs south tournament where France and New Zealand are permanently excluded. Would it not be better to have an end-of-year contest between, for example, the top two teams in each hemisphere, as determined by that year's Six Nations and Tri-Nations results?
Alan, UK

We don't need any more meaningless competitions. It will simply put more pressure on international players and make the fixture calander even more congested. It would also be a destraction from the Six Nations.

And what would happen in Lions tour years? If the competition is to be abandoned for the World Cup it would have to be abondoned for these too. Why are administrators always trying to screw up the good things we've already got and coming up with other useless competitions!
Mark Heywood, England

About time. This is what the supporters have been hankering after for years. The best of the northern hemisphere against the best of the southern. Why couldn't New Zealand and France get involved as well? It is about time England were tested against the Tri-Nations regularly. The idea has my full support.
Tim O'Sullivan, UK

What a fantastic idea! There can never be enough top class rugby and the Six Nations just isn't enough. This plan has been a long time coming and it's great to see that it's finally on the way!
Pete Caswell, England

Is this another case of O'Neill trying to marginalise NZ rugby? First the World Cup - is he now trying to eject the All Blacks from the Tri-Nations?
Reuben Woods, New Zealand

A wonderful idea in principal, but when is it that the rugby players from the southern hemisphere are going to get a break? They already begin training in late December for the Super 12 and with New Zealand's domestic competition finishing in late October, those six weeks break are very much needed.

As we have already seen over the last few years, all southern hemisphere teams have been well below par on the end of season tours due to burn-out of the players. Let them have a rest.
Mark Harwood, New Zealand

What about the current feeling that top players are in danger of burn-out? Only recently we have had "player-power" dictating that the North v South Hemisphere match was one too far.

I have no doubt that the English players will be happy to play in this new series because their rewards will be much greater. I feel that the game will become even more polarised between rich and poor rubgy nations.

Before agreeing to this series the IRB and RFU should stabilise the current fixtures in the interests of ALL rugby countries.
Michael, UK

It is very difficult to say, as the best way to improve is to play the best. It would, however, seriously infringe upon the domestic league and have a similar impact as that seen in cricket, with the county game paling into insignificance as England players cannot represent their clubs. From a revenue point of view though, I'm sure it would boost the game.
Pete, UK